|
|
Post by BrianNZ on Jun 20, 2017 9:24:11 GMT
Under 2.2 a straight Knight vs Blade matchup was (roughly) 42% Kill vs 17% Tie (lock) vs 36% Recoil vs 6% Kill Under 3.0 this has shifted to 42% Kill vs 36% Recoil vs 22% Kill. In essence the Blade now has over 3x the chance of killing the Knight in version 3 over 2.2. Further, this takes away the chance of committing a knight general to such a charge. I would further argue that the loss of rear support is a benefit to knights. Knights now recoil vs Solid infantry on a tie (well, not Blades)... this is huge change. A knight charge vs a wall of Spear is now a very bloody and risky endeavor. Joe Collins Bring back the Tactical Factor, +1 Knights charging straight ahead into contact against Sp & Bd in Good Going. Must be straight ahead and would not count for other contacts such as pursuit. |
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 20, 2017 11:46:44 GMT
Hello Timurlenk,
Regarding evidence lets turn the question on its head a bit to ' what historical evidence is there to markedly differentiate Roman Auxilia and legionaries fighting styles and tactics'.
My answer to this is that there isn't any of real note. Sure Auxiliaries seem to have been armed with Lancea and javelins but so were some legionaries if I recall. They were also often armoured , were good swordsmen (see Tacitus' Agricola vs Caladones) and could fight in close formation (see Ammianus' description of Battle of Stasbourg - shields overlapping like scales of a tortoise ??).
So basically they are primarily close combat swordsmen (tho both had various missile weapons) - just like legionaries (indeed if Tacitus and Ammianus had stated that the troops they were describing were legionaries we would not have thought twice about it). As I said they are basically a cheaper (but not markedly less effective they defeated gladiators and legionaries in 69AD and legionaries in 312AD in Milan if I recall rightly) form of legionary and this is I think the current view of most historians. One thing they are not is a slightly souped up version of a bunch of semi-skirmishing javelin throwers which is what PB rates them as.
cheers
Barritus
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 20, 2017 13:39:29 GMT
Hello Timurlenk, Regarding evidence lets turn the question on its head a bit to ' what historical evidence is there to markedly differentiate Roman Auxilia and legionaries fighting styles and tactics'. My answer to this is that there isn't any of real note. Sure Auxiliaries seem to have been armed with Lancea and javelins but so were some legionaries if I recall. They were also often armoured , were good swordsmen (see Tacitus' Agricola vs Caladones) and could fight in close formation (see Ammianus' description of Battle of Stasbourg - shields overlapping like scales of a tortoise ??). So basically they are primarily close combat swordsmen (tho both had various missile weapons) - just like legionaries (indeed if Tacitus and Ammianus had stated that the troops they were describing were legionaries we would not have thought twice about it). As I said they are basically a cheaper (but not markedly less effective they defeated gladiators and legionaries in 69AD and legionaries in 312AD in Milan if I recall rightly) form of legionary and this is I think the current view of most historians. One thing they are not is a slightly souped up version of a bunch of semi-skirmishing javelin throwers which is what PB rates them as. cheers Barritus Good points.
The differences between the two (auxilia and legionnaire) becomes evident with their deployment during the march and for battle; Arrian – Battle against the Alani. Each had a different function in battle but there are instances when auxilia behaved like legionnaires (Mona – Batavians) and legionnaires adapting a loose formation to fight in difficult ground.
As the current rule stands, I am content to see auxilia (4Ax) send cavalry recoiling back on even scores, clear difficult hills and wood of enemy troops. The early Greek manuals describe the role of peltasts (3Ax) was to support the psiloi and this does work well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 20, 2017 16:53:04 GMT
No, I plan to write them with Phil (if he is able), Sue and hopefully others.
Joe Collins
Joe why would Phil not be 'able' ? Have enjoyed reading all five pages, many good ideas. Here is a suggestion for the Aux question, give 4Ax +1 Flank Support in Good Going if supported by Pk, Bd or Sp, if in Bad or Rough Going +1 if supported by 4Ax. Phil is 84 and his health is not what it used to be. This delayed the finishing and publishing of DBA 3 for at least 6 months... though perhaps a year is a better estimate. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 20, 2017 20:58:29 GMT
It seems pretty obvious from this discussion that you need both "close fighting" Medium Foot and "skrimishing" Medium Foot.
Not in favor of "ad hoc" +1 etc. Too much rule overahead.
Ideas to consider:
Close Fighting "sword" armed Medium Foot raise CF v. Foot by +1 (so they are +4 v. Foot). Keep "Loose Order" Ability (not effected by Terrian).
Mount all "Solid" types on 20mm deep bases (in 25mm) and all Fast types on 30mmm bases. Return to having Recoils and Pursuits be a Base Depth. So "Fast" can out Recoil "Solid".
Alternatively we could consider Joe's "semi-Flee" Recoil of 1BW. Withdrawl Ability: "Any Stand with the Loose Order Ability and a greater MA than the winning Stand in the Terrian it occupies may convert Recoil a full BW."
I doubt any of this well every be accepted for general tournament play but I'm interested in new ideas (which if good I will steal).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 21, 2017 2:42:14 GMT
The best I think we can get for 3.1 is some clarifications and such. I don't see Phil ever agreeing to rules tweaks.
My last comments on Roman Auxilia were as much to illustrate that Phil will not budge from his position no matter how much evidence may be put before him (this is emphasised in a Slingshot article back in Nov 2001 on Roman Auxilia in DBM which quite a few people - including myself took part wrote a lot of good points and of course achieved nothing). Blades vs elephants which I have posted earlier are another example of Phil's rejection of good evidence (it also gives a much better historical and game outcome I might add).
In regards Auxilia I think the current rules give a good rendition of skirmishing Auxila with 3Ax. 4Ax however just need a bit more oomph - especially now as Sp have flank support so where it was likely in 2.2 to be a +4 vs +3 fight in 3.0 its likely to be a +5 vs +3 fight which is death to the Auxilia in short order.
My own preference is for 4Ax to QK SP. Pk and Bd on a draw since although it still makes 4Ax in the open a bit weak there is still a chance of a kill (so always hope for the 4Ax player!). The alternative is I think to give a +1 tactical factor to 4Ax fighting Sp, Pk or Bd in rough or open going (allows 4Ax to hang around longer but unlikely to kill Bd and Sp). I know Phil has rejected both these options in th e past - a pity as either is preferable to the massacres of 4Ax at moment (and would make some armies Catalans, Dalami come to mind, more likely to be seen on the tabletop which would certainly be a good thing).
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 21, 2017 8:00:06 GMT
Looking at MonsGraupius in 83/84AD several points arise:
(1) Tacitus (our only source?) is very clear that II/60 Caledonian was using cavalry, so there should be an option for 2x2LH or 3Wb. It cannot be cavelry or chariots as both are present.
(2) The chariots are clearly 2-horse with 2-crew, however the Latin is clear (Loeb edition) that these are scythed chariots, but they are handled like normal chariots, one crew member dismounting, there is also a reference to these in the "Germania". I am reminded of a lady with her daughters on the Embankment, chariot with scythes, so maybe a rule change is needed?
As an aside, the hill is not steep or difficult but gentle in the "Agricola", the warband despite having numbers in their favour and being uphill are defeated by auxilia moving like legionaries, sword in hand, good going on the dice, same tactical factor, but the warband get extra for being uphill and rear support.
David Constable
P.S. - Sorry, missed out that it is modern authors that mention the cavalry, they do not seem to be mentioned in the "Agricola", but I am re-checking this. The DBMM list agrees with DBA2.2 & 3.0, no cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 21, 2017 10:03:02 GMT
The best I think we can get for 3.1 is some clarifications and such. I don't see Phil ever agreeing to rules tweaks.
My last comments on Roman Auxilia were as much to illustrate that Phil will not budge from his position no matter how much evidence may be put before him (this is emphasised in a Slingshot article back in Nov 2001 on Roman Auxilia in DBM which quite a few people - including myself took part wrote a lot of good points and of course achieved nothing). Blades vs elephants which I have posted earlier are another example of Phil's rejection of good evidence (it also gives a much better historical and game outcome I might add).
In regards Auxilia I think the current rules give a good rendition of skirmishing Auxila with 3Ax. 4Ax however just need a bit more oomph - especially now as Sp have flank support so where it was likely in 2.2 to be a +4 vs +3 fight in 3.0 its likely to be a +5 vs +3 fight which is death to the Auxilia in short order.
My own preference is for 4Ax to QK SP. Pk and Bd on a draw since although it still makes 4Ax in the open a bit weak there is still a chance of a kill (so always hope for the 4Ax player!). The alternative is I think to give a +1 tactical factor to 4Ax fighting Sp, Pk or Bd in rough or open going (allows 4Ax to hang around longer but unlikely to kill Bd and Sp). I know Phil has rejected both these options in th e past - a pity as either is preferable to the massacres of 4Ax at moment (and would make some armies Catalans, Dalami come to mind, more likely to be seen on the tabletop which would certainly be a good thing).
Cheers
B.
Is the upgrading of 4Ax really necessary when it was the rule tweek of adding the +1 for side support that caused the problem? If the side support rule is intended to reflect a steadiness and solidity in close combat then it could be dropped versus skirmishing types that wouldn't initially charge home? For example count side support against Bd,Pk,Sp,Wb and Wwg but not against Aux,Bw and Ps? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 21, 2017 14:10:14 GMT
Is the upgrading of 4Ax really necessary when it was the rule tweek of adding the +1 for side support that caused the problem? If the side support rule is intended to reflect a steadiness and solidity in close combat then it could be dropped versus skirmishing types that wouldn't initially charge home? For example count side support against Bd,Pk,Sp,Wb and Wwg but not against Aux,Bw and Ps? That’s a nice idea Haardrada, and I like it… ...unfortunately it would have no effect on the Ax vs Bd confrontation at Cannae.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 21, 2017 14:44:00 GMT
Let us all be clear on this matter. Phil Barker has over the years produced a wonderful set of ancient rules, and we should all be grateful to him. Each version of DBA has been a marked improvement over its predecessor, with new ideas and concepts. Several mechanisms and troop types have been improved to make them both quicker and more realistic. Sp now has side support, making the Viking-Saxon conflicts more historical, and LH now gets a rear support boost. But the interplay between Ax and other heavy foot such as Bd is wrong. It was wrong 20 years ago…and it is still wrong now. Now it doesn’t matter if I say it’s wrong (after all, I am a nobody, and my opinion is irrelevant)…And it doesn’t matter if other players also say it’s wrong (we all have different opinions on what should be right)…But it does matter when both Polybius and Livy say it’s wrong! If you don’t believe me then read what these two ancient historians wrote about the battle of Cannae, then with those same eyes see for yourselves what happens on your wargames table when Ax fights Bd. Were the situation too complex to be easily fixed, then I could understand. But it is easy to fix, possibly by a +1 to Ax for facing heavy foot, or by side support, or by rear support, or by reducing the overlap destruction of Ax by heavy foot, or perhaps some other one sentence rule. However, Phil Barker refuses to even acknowledge that there is a problem, let alone find a solution. Cannae has been ignored, pretended that it didn’t happen, and airbrushed out of DBA history. And after 20 years of denying that this important battle has any relevance, I doubt that he will change now. Therefore I fully support Joe Collins attempt to at least try to give Ax the choice to either recoil or ‘evade’ 1 BW. It’s what the ancient sources say they did when they used peltast tactics against their heavier opponents. Even though it still won’t make Cannae playable, and Ax will still die too easily, it is better than nothing. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 21, 2017 14:46:59 GMT
Is the upgrading of 4Ax really necessary when it was the rule tweek of adding the +1 for side support that caused the problem? If the side support rule is intended to reflect a steadiness and solidity in close combat then it could be dropped versus skirmishing types that wouldn't initially charge home? For example count side support against Bd,Pk,Sp,Wb and Wwg but not against Aux,Bw and Ps? That’s a nice idea Haardrada, and I like it… ...unfortunately it would have no effect on the Ax vs Bd confrontation at Cannae. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Yes, Stevie is correct here in my opinion. I'm not as worried with Ax vs Sp. It is the Ax vs Bd and Ax vs Pk matchups that I think are out of whack. Are there any examples of Pk vs Ax from the Roman/Macedonian wars? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 21, 2017 14:54:50 GMT
What about this?
On the "Doubled" combat outcome...
If its total is half or less than half that of its opponent:
Ax - Recoil 1BW from Pk and Bd during their bound, else destroyed
This
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 21, 2017 16:16:46 GMT
It is also 4Ax verses 3Wb and probably 4Wb.
Tacitus in his book "Agricola" has the Roman 4Ax defeat the 3Wb, despite the warband having numbers in their favour and being uphill, they are defeated by auxilia moving like legionaries, sword in hand in close order, good going on the dice, same tactical factor, but the warband get extra for being uphill and rear support.
It is almost as if the 4Ax are 4Bd that ignore bad terrain. The same might be said for Greek style 4Ax.
A very heretical thought, could they be treated as 4Bd or 4Sp but with bad terrain capability, perhaps indicated as ignoring the bad terrain deduction by a star or something being added.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 21, 2017 16:26:29 GMT
It is also 4Ax verses 3Wb and probably 4Wb. Tacitus in his book "Agricola" has the Roman 4Ax defeat the 3Wb, despite the warband having numbers in their favour and being uphill, they are defeated by auxilia moving like legionaries, sword in hand in close order, good going on the dice, same tactical factor, but the warband get extra for being uphill and rear support. It is almost as if the 4Ax are 4Bd that ignore bad terrain. The same might be said for Greek style 4Ax. A very heretical thought, could they be treated as 4Bd or 4Sp but with bad terrain capability, perhaps indicated as ignoring the bad terrain deduction by a star or something being added. David Constable I often think that heretical thought should also apply to Swiss 4Bd and Pk...given Historical performance..but I don't want to give troop types abilities simular to Warhammer super powers.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 21, 2017 16:37:44 GMT
Is the upgrading of 4Ax really necessary when it was the rule tweek of adding the +1 for side support that caused the problem? If the side support rule is intended to reflect a steadiness and solidity in close combat then it could be dropped versus skirmishing types that wouldn't initially charge home? For example count side support against Bd,Pk,Sp,Wb and Wwg but not against Aux,Bw and Ps? That’s a nice idea Haardrada, and I like it… ...unfortunately it would have no effect on the Ax vs Bd confrontation at Cannae. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Back on the old DBA Fanaticus site under the Battle scenarios the author recommended grading the Aux/Wb as Bd (-1) to best represent their steadiness at Cannae...I don't know if that would work for you? Otherwise, classing the 4Aux as 4Sp with side support? |
|
